Re: CITR and the Koran

If those are your feelings fine. You may not agree with me but at least I
can back up what I say.

>From: "adam lescalleet" <adam@sebcoe.org>
>Reply-To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
>To: <bananafish@roughdraft.org>
>Subject: Re: CITR and the Koran
>Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:21:00 -0500
>
>heh.
>saying 'god bless america' on a billboard is much different than making it
>mandatory for all incoming freshman at a large public university read the
>bible. you must not be seeing something here. this is my last email on
>the
>subject, because i feel that this has become a stupid coversation.
>
>-adam.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "m e g h a n" <bedroomdancing@hotmail.com>
>To: <bananafish@roughdraft.org>
>Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 3:38 PM
>Subject: Re: CITR and the Koran
>
>
> >
> > No, I'm not saying that at all. I just disagree with you that there'd be
> > twice as much controversy. I think there'd be little controversy, if
>any,
> > over the Christian bible. I don't think you can argue that Christianity
> > isn't the most accepted religion. As I've said before, it's perfectly ok
>to
> > say God. How many God Bless America billboards and such have you seen
>since
> > September 11? No one cares if people want to talk about God. But once
>you
> > mention Allah, you're practically labeled a terrorist. I may be the only
>one
> > arguging with you over this issue, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. It's
>my
> > opinion. Could you explain why you think there'd be twice as much of a
> > reaction, instead of just repeating that?
> >
> >
> > >From: "adam lescalleet" <adam@sebcoe.org>
> > >Reply-To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
> > >To: <bananafish@roughdraft.org>
> > >Subject: Re: CITR and the Koran
> > >Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:31:12 -0500
> > >
> > >ok, so what exactly are you saying? are you saying that since God is
>still
> > >in the Pledge that people accept God more than "any other religious
> > >figure"?
> > >i don't think so...my point here still stands, that if it were the
> > >Christian
> > >Bible being read, then there would have been at least twice as much
> > >reaction. you're about the only one that would disagree with me on
>that.
> > >
> > >-adam.
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "m e g h a n" <bedroomdancing@hotmail.com>
> > >To: <adam@sebcoe.org>
> > >Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:40 AM
> > >Subject: Re: CITR and the Koran
> > >
> > >
> > > > A big dispute, and look what happened.. God is still in the Pledge.
>You
> > > > can't argue that God is more accepted than any other religious
>figure.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "adam lescalleet" <adam@sebcoe.org>
> > > > >To: "m e g h a n" <bedroomdancing@hotmail.com>
> > > > >Subject: Re: CITR and the Koran
> > > > >Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:47:37 -0500
> > > > >
> > > > >It's ok to mention God?
> > > > >
> > > > >Hmm. Wasn't there a big dispute about saying "one nation, under
>God"
>in
> > > > >schools when repeating the Pledge of Allegiance?
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "m e g h a n" <bedroomdancing@hotmail.com>
> > > > >To: <bananafish@roughdraft.org>; <adam@sebcoe.org>
> > > > >Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:57 PM
> > > > >Subject: RE: CITR and the Koran
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also said that there wouldn't be controversey, at least not as
> > >much,
> > > > >if
> > > > > > the Bible instead of the Koran was chosen, and I think that for
>the
> > >same
> > > > > > reasons you do. It seems that it's ok to mention God, in
>Christian
> > >form
> > > > >as
> > > > > > much as you want, but if you want to mention Allah, well then
> > >there's
> > >a
> > > > > > problem.
> > > > > > >From: "Matthew S. Mahoney" <matthew.s.mahoney@vanderbilt.edu>
> > > > > > >Reply-To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
> > > > > > >To: "adam lescalleet" <adam@sebcoe.org>,
> > ><bananafish@roughdraft.org>
> > > > > > >Subject: RE: CITR and the Koran
> > > > > > >Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 06:49:22 -0500
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >that was me who said it wouldn't have been as big a deal if the
> > >Bible
> > > > >was
> > > > > > >the
> > > > > > >text in question-what i was implying, however, was not that
>groups
> > >like
> > > > >the
> > > > > > >ACLU, etc, would not get involved, because they most certainly
> > >would,
> > > > >but
> > > > > > >that
> > > > > > >popular sentiment, the thoughts on the issue by the average
>joe,
> > >would
> > > > >be
> > > > > > >much
> > > > > > >less ferocious and pervasive, and indeed even existent. the
>bible,
> > > > >being
> > > > > > >inherently more familiar and 'accepted,' would provoke less of
>a
> > > > >response
> > > > > > >than
> > > > > > >an unfamiliar and distinctive Koran, simply because more
>noteworthy
> > > > >things
> > > > > > >lead us to perform a double-take. (the Koran, of course, has
> > >largely
> > > > >been
> > > > > > >dragged into this due to our frenzy with all things 9/11-in any
> > >other
> > > > >year,
> > > > > > >this would have gone largely unnoticed. my read on the
> > > > >situation-extremely
> > > > > > >savvy newspaper personnel picking up on a story guaranteed to
>turn
> > > > >heads,
> > > > > > >and
> > > > > > >us (society) following in tow-some with meritorious debates,
>most
> > >with
> > > > > > >ignorant rhetoric).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >===== Original Message From "adam lescalleet"
><adam@sebcoe.org>
> > >=====
> > > > > > > >That's exactly their explanation for the reason it was
>chosen.
> > >Due
> > > > >to
> > > > > > >the
> > > > > > > >recent happenings "over there", they figured it would be good
>to
> > >gain
> > > > >a
> > > > > > > >better understanding on the religion that is supposedly the
>flame
> > > > >that
> > > > >is
> > > > > > > >the passion that drives them to do this; some of them say
>they
>do
> > >it
> > > > >for
> > > > > > > >religious purposes, and, for the most part, true devout
>followers
> > >of
> > > > >the
> > > > > > > >Koran are being cast under an ugly light. I can't really say
> > >that
> > >I
> > > > > > >appose
> > > > > > > >or support this...I think that, like someone said earlier,
>it's
> > >all
> > > > >quite
> > > > > > > >silly to be made such a big deal over.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >And who said that if they had to read the Christian Bible it
> > >wouldn't
> > > > >be
> > > > > > >a
> > > > > > > >big deal? I think that if they did, there wouldn't have been
> > >just
> > >a
> > > > > > >handful
> > > > > > > >of people suing the university over this... =)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >-adam.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > >From: "Scottie Bowman" <rbowman@indigo.ie>
> > > > > > > >To: <bananafish@roughdraft.org>
> > > > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:02 AM
> > > > > > > >Subject: Re: CITR and the Koran
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I presume the idea is to broaden understanding in the
> > >aftermath
> > > > > > > >> of last September & Middle Eastern events generally.
>But
>I
> > > > >wonder
> > > > > > > >> really how much relevance a grasp of the Koran has to
>that
> > > > > > >enterprise.
> > > > > > > >> It's like suggesting that a mastery of the King James
>Bible
> > >or
> > > > > > > >> of Humanae Vita will illuminate the conflict in the
>North
> > >of
> > > > > > >Ireland.
> > > > > > > >> Only very, very marginally.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Scriptures can be used - and are, all the time - in
> > > > >diametrically
> > > > > > > >> opposed ways to support almost any political stance.
> > >'Islam',
> > > > > > > >> nowadays, is essentially a tribal badge - just like
>'The
> > >West'.
> > > > > > > >> The tribes have grown to existence along many different
> > >routes
> > > > > > > >> - economic, historic, & the rest. The religion of the
>tribe
> > > > > > >(whether
> > > > > > > >> Islam or Humanist Capitalism) is now little more than a
> > >handy
> > > > > > > >> combustible to fuel the fire.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Scottie B.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> -
> > > > > > > >> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the
>message
> > > > > > > >> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >-
> > > > > > > >* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the
>message
> > > > > > > >* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >" I would gladly trade all my friends for the company of
>children."
> > > > > > > -Albert
>Einstien
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Matthew S. Mahoney
> > > > > > >Station B 8209
> > > > > > >matthew.s.mahoney@vanderbilt.edu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >-
> > > > > > >* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> > > > > > >* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
>_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> > >http://mobile.msn.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
>http://messenger.msn.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >-
> > >* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> > >* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> >
> > -
> > * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> > * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
> >
>
>-
>* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
>* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 22 17:26:30 2002